[EL] California top-two effect on number of Republicans running for US House

[Jack Santucci]

I guess one just has to look at the districts over two or a few cycles.
Top-two may well matter in some way. Or not. I'm intrigued by the
redistricting-plus-top-two argument below. What kind of intraparty
competition? Just incumbent-on-incumbent or some new(ly intense) form of
intraparty competition?

Is anyone looking at the districts? It would make an interesting blog post.
Maybe even a short article in a BePress journal.

Jack

On Friday, September 28, 2012, Douglas Johnson wrote:

> An alternative theory is possible, which, if correct, leads to the exact
> opposite conclusion about the top-two & redistricting reform:****
>
> ** **
>
> In 2010, Virtually every California Congressional campaign's result was
> known well in advance thanks to the 2001 bipartisan incumbent-protection
> gerrymander. There was little for either party to do except focus on the
> symbolic "win" of running a candidate in every district.****
>
> ** **
>
> In 2012, there are a number of inter-party competitive districts, and a
> number of intra-party competitive districts. Thanks to redistricting reform
> and the top two primary system, there are a number of Congressional
> districts essentially up for grabs. So the parties and activists are
> focused on winning those districts. They appear to have decided that is
> more important than seeing which party can field more sacrificial
> candidates who lose 80-20 on election day.****
>
> ** **
>
> I'm not saying this is the true case (the real question about party
> resources, power, and enthusiasm is much more complicated than can be
> debated by email -- for example, the CA Republican Party came so close to
> bankruptcy it had to close its Sacramento office), but I offer an entirely
> different scenario and conclusion is possible.****
>
> ** **
>
> - Doug****
>
> ** **
>
> Douglas Johnson****
>
> Fellow****
>
> Rose Institute of State and Local Government****
>
> m 310-200-2058****
>
> o 909-621-8159****
>
> douglas.johnson at cmc.edu <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'douglas.johnson at cmc.edu');>****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu <javascript:_e({},
> 'cvml', 'law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu');> [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu');>] *On Behalf Of *Richard
> Winger
> *Sent:* Friday, September 28, 2012 8:46 AM
> *To:* Jack Santucci
> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'law-election at uci.edu');>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] California top-two effect on number of Republicans
> running for US House****
>
> ** **
>
> California's new congressional districts, drawn by the state's first
> non-partisan districting commission, are considered to have produced more
> competitive districts than the redistricting in place 2001-2010.  The 2000
> decade redistricting was famous for making as many districts as possible
> "safe" for one or the other major party.
>
> So, if Republicans ran in every single district in California in 2010
> under the old, uncompetitive districts, the new districts surely wouldn't
> have deterred any Republican from running.
>
> I can't imagine any other strategic considerations that would cause
> Republicans to want to run in fewer districts.  A major party loses
> prestige when it doesn't field anyone for a congressional race.  The
> absence of a congressional candidate is bad for the morale of the local
> party in that area.
>
> Richard Winger
> 415-922-9779
> PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
>
> --- On *Thu, 9/27/12, Jack Santucci <jms346 at georgetown.edu<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'jms346 at georgetown.edu');>
> >* wrote:****
>
>
> From: Jack Santucci <jms346 at georgetown.edu <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'jms346 at georgetown.edu');>>
> Subject: Re: [EL] California top-two effect on number of Republicans
> running for US House
> To: "richardwinger at yahoo.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'richardwinger at yahoo.com');>" <richardwinger at yahoo.com <javascript:_e({},
> 'cvml', 'richardwinger at yahoo.com');>>
> Cc: "law-election at uci.edu <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'law-election at uci.edu');>" <law-election at uci.edu <javascript:_e({},
> 'cvml', 'law-election at uci.edu');>>
> Date: Thursday, September 27, 2012, 10:37 PM****
>
> How do we know it's top-two? Might it have to do with redistricting? Other
> year-specific strategic considerations? Idiosyncratic factors?****
>
> ** **
>
> Best,****
>
> Jack
>
> On Thursday, September 27, 2012, Richard Winger wrote:****
>
> The Republican Party has candidates on the ballot in 415 U.S. House
> districts this year (out of 435 districts in the nation).  Of the twenty
> districts in which there is no Republican, nine of them are in California.
> By contrast, in 2010, every California district had a Republican on the
> ballot.
>
> In 2010, the Republicans nationally had candidates on the ballot in 428
> districts, so two-thirds of the national reduction for the party is due to
> California's top-two system.
>
> Richard Winger
> 415-922-9779
> PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147****
>
> ** **
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120928/c1a40451/attachment.html>